Vladimir Ilyich Lenin

Disruption of Unity Under Cover of Outcries for Unity

Published:Published in 
	  May 1914 in the journalProsveshcheniyeNo. 5.  Signed:V. 
	  Ilyin.  Published according to the text in the journal.Source:Lenin’sCollected Works, Progress Publishers, 1972,
	  Moscow,Volume 20,
      pp.325-347.Translated:Bernard Isaacs and The Late Joe FinebergTranscription:C. KavanaghHTML Markup:B. BagginsandD. WaltersRe-Markup:K. Goins(2008)Public Domain:Lenin Internet Archive (1996).You may freely copy, distribute, display and 
	  perform this work; as well as make derivative and commercial works. Please 
	  credit “Marxists Internet Archive” as your source.

The questions of the present-day working-class movement are
in many respects vexed questions, particularly for representatives of that
movement’s recent past (i. e., of the stage which historically has just
drawn to a close). This applies primarily to the questions of so-called
factionalism, splits, and so forth. One often hears intellectuals in the
working-class movement making nervous, feverish and almost hysterical
appeals not to raise these vexed questions. Those who have experienced the
long years of struggle between the various trends among Marxists since
1900—01, for example, may naturally think it superfluous to repeat many of
the arguments on the subject of these vexed questions.

But there are not many people left today who took part in the
fourteen-year-old conflict among Marxists (not to speak of the eighteen- or
nineteen-year-old conflict, counting from the moment the first symptoms of
Economism appeared). The vast majority of the workers who now make up the
ranks of the Marxists either do not remember the old conflict, or have
never heard of it. To the overwhelming majority (as, incidentally, was
shown by the opinion poll held by our
journal[5]), these vexed questions are a matter of exception ally great
interest. We therefore intend to deal with these questions, which have been
raisedas it wereanew (and for the younger generation of the
workers they are really new) by Trotsky’s “non-factional workers’
journal”,Borba.

I. “FACTIONALISM”

Trotsky calls his new journal “non-factional”. He puts this word in
the top line in his advertisements; this word is stressed by him in every
key, in the editorial articles ofBorbaitself, as well as in the
liquidationistSevernaya Rabochaya Gazeta, which carried an
article onBorbaby Trotsky before the latter began publication.

What is this “non-factionalism”?

Trotsky’s “workers’ journal” is Trotsky’s journalforworkers, as there is not a trace in it of either workers’ initiative, or
any connection with working-class organisations. Desiring to write in a
popular style, Trotsky, in his journal for workers, explains for the
benefit of his readers the meaning of such foreign words as “territory”,
“factor”, and so forth.

Very good. But why not also explain to the workers the meaning of the
word “non-factionalism”? Is that wordmoreintelligible than the
words “territory” and “factor”?

No, that is not the reason. The reason is that the label
“non-factionalism” is used by the worst representatives of the worst
remnants of factionalismto misleadthe younger generation of
workers. It is worth while devoting a little time to explaining this.

Group-division was the main distinguishing feature of the
Social-Democratic Party during a definite historical period. Which period?
From 1903 to 1911.

To explain the nature of this group-division more clearly we must
recall the concrete conditions that existed in, say, 1906—07. At that time
the Party was united, there was no split, but group-division existed,
i. e., in the united Party there werevirtually twogroups, two
virtually separate organisations. The local workers’ organisations were
united, but on every important issue the two groups devised two sets of
tactics. The advocates of the respective tactics disputed among themselves
in the united workers’ organisations (as was the case, for example, during
the discussion of the slogan: a Duma, or Cadet, Ministry, in 1906, or
during the elections of delegates to the London Congress in 1907), and
questions were decidedby a majority vote. One group was defeated
at the Stockholm Unity Congress (1906), the other was defeated at the
London Unity Congress (1907).

These are commonly known facts in the history of organised Marxism in
Russia.

It is sufficient to recall these commonly known facts to realise what
glaring falsehoods Trotsky is spreading.

For over two years, since 1912, there has beennofactionalism
among the organised Marxists in Russia, no disputes over tactics inunitedorganisations, at unitedconferencesand
congresses. There is acompletebreak between theParty, which in January 1912 formally announced that the liquidatorsdo
notbelong to it, and the liquidators. Trotsky often calls this state
of affairs a “split”, and we shall deal with this appellation separately
later on. But it remains an undoubted fact that the term “factionalism”deviates from the truth.

As we have said, this term is a repetition, an uncritical,
unreasonable, senseless repetition ofwhat was true yesterday,
i. e., in the period that has already passed. When Trotsky talks to us
about the “chaos of factional strife” (see No. 1, pp. 5, 6, and many
others) we realise at oncewhichperiod of the past his words
echo.

Consider the present state of affairs from the viewpoint of the young
Russian workers who now constitute nine-tenths of the organised Marxists in
Russia. They seethreemass expressions of the different views, or
trends in the working-class movement: the Pravdists, gathered around a
newspaper with a circulation of 40,000; the liquidators (15,000
circulation) and the Left Narodniks (10,000 circulation). The circulation
figures tell the reader about themasscharacter of a given tenet.

The question arises; what has “chaos” got to do with it? Everybody
knows that Trotsky is fond of high-sounding and empty phrases. But the
catchword “chaos” isnot onlyphrase-mongering; it signifiesalsothe transplanting, or rather, a vain attempt to transplant,
to Russian soil, in the present period, the relations that existedabroadin abygoneperiod. That is the whole point.

There is no “chaos” whatever in the struggle between the Marxists and
the Narodniks. That, we hope, notevenTrotsky will dare to
deny. The struggle between the Marxists and the Narodniks has been going on
for over thirty years, ever since Marxism came into being. The cause of
this struggle is the radical divergence of interests and viewpoints of two
different classes, the proletariat and the peasantry. If there is any
“chaos” anywhere, it is only in the heads of cranks who fail to
understand this.

What, then, remains? “Chaos” in the struggle between the Marxists and
the liquidators? That, too, is wrong, for a struggle against atrend, which the entire Party recognised as a trend and condemned
as far back as 1908, cannot becalled chaos. And everybody who has the least concern for the history of
Marxism in Russia knows that liquidationism is most closely and inseverably
connected, even as regards its leaders and supporters, with Menshevism
(1903—08) and Economism (1894—1903). Consequently, here, too, we have a
history extending over nearly twenty years. To regard the history of one’s
own Party as “chaos” reveals an unpardonable empty-headedness.

Now let us examine the present situationfrom the point of
viewof Paris or Vienna. At once the whole picture
changes.Besidesthe Pravdists and liquidators, we seeno less
than five Russiangroups claiming membership of one and the same
Social-Democratic Party: Trotsky’s group, twoVperyodgroups, the
“pro-Party Bolsheviks” and the “pro-Party
Mensheviks”.[6]All Marxists in Paris and in Vienna (for the purpose
of illustration I take two of the largest centres) are perfectly well aware
of this.

Here Trotsky is right in a certain sense; this is indeed
group-division, chaos indeed!

Groups within the Party, i. e., nominal unity (allclaimto
belong to one Party) and actual disunity (for, in fact, all the groups are
independent of one another and enter into negotiations and agreements with
each other as sovereign powers).

“Chaos”, i. e., the absence of
(1) objective and verifiable proof that these groups are linked with the
working-class movement in Russia and
(2) absence of any data to enable us to judge the actual ideological and
political physiognomy of these groups. Take a period of two full
years—1912 and 1913. As everybody knows, this was a period of the revival
and upswing of the working-class movement, when every trend or tendency of
a more or lessmasscharacter (and in politics this mass character
alone counts)could not butexercise some influence on the Fourth
Duma elections, the strike movement, the legal newspapers, the trade
unions, the insurance election campaign, and so on. Throughout those two
years, not one of these five groups abroad asserted itself in the slightest
degreein anyof the activities of the mass working-class movement
in Russia just enumerated!

That is a fact that anybody can easily verify.

And that fact proves that we were right in calling Trotsky a
representative of the “worst remnants of factionalism”.

Although he claims to be non-factional, Trotsky is known to everybody
who is in the least familiar with the working-class movement in Russia as
the representative of “Trotsky’sfaction”. Here we have
group-division, for we see two essential symptoms of it:
(1) nominal recognition of unity and
(2) group segregation in fact. Here there are remnants of group-division,
for there is no evidence whatever of any real connection with the mass
working-class movement in Russia.

And lastly, it is the worst form of group-division, for there isnoideological and political definiteness. It cannot be denied
that this definiteness is characteristic of both the Pravdists (even our
determined opponent L. Martov admits that we stand “solid and
disciplined” around universally known formal decisions on all questions)
and the liquidators (they, or at all events the most prominent of them,
have very definite features, namely, liberal, not Marxist).

It cannot be denied that some of the groups which, like Trotsky’s,
really exist exclusively from the Vienna-Paris, but by no means from the
Russian, point of view, possess a degree of definiteness. For example, theMachisttheories of the MachistVperyodgroup are
definite; the emphatic repudiation of these theories and defence of
Marxism, in addition to the theoretical condemnation of liquidationism, by
the “pro-Party Mensheviks”, are definite.

Trotsky, however, possesses no ideological and political definiteness,
for his patent for “non-factionalism”, as we shall soon see in greater
detail, is merely a patent toflitfreely to and fro, from one
group to another.

1)
 Trotsky does not explain, nor does he understand, the historical
significance of theideologicaldisagreements among the various
Marxist trends and groups, although these disagreements run through the
twenty years’ history of Social Democracy and concern the fundamental
questions of the present day (as we shall show later on);

2)
 Trotsky fails to understand that the main specific features ofgroup-divisionare nominal recognition of unity and actual
disunity;

3)
 Under cover of “non-factionalism” Trotsky is championing the interests of
a group abroad which particularly lacks definite principles, and has no
basis in the working-class movement in Russia.

All that glitters is not gold. There is much glitter and sound in
Trotsky’s phrases, but they are meaningless.

II. THE SPLIT

“Although there is no group-division, i. e., nominal recognition of
unity, but actual disunity, among you, Pravdists, there is something worse,
namely, splitting tactics,” we are told. This is exactly what Trotsky
says. Unable to think out his ideas or to get his arguments to hang
together, he rants against group-division at one moment, and at the next
shouts: “Splitting tactics are winning one suicidal victory after
another”. (No. 1, p. 6.)

This statement can have only one mending: “ThePravdistsare
winning one victory after another” (this is an objective, verifiable fact,
established by a study of the mass working-class movement in Russia during,
say, 1912 and 1913),but I, Trotsky, denounce the Pravdists
(1) as splitters, and
(2) as suicidal politicians.

Let us examine this.

First of all we must express our thanks to Trotsky. Not long ago (from
August 1912 to February 1914) he was at one with F. Dan, who, as is well
known, threatened to “kill” anti-liquidationism, and called upon
others to do so. At present Trotsky does not threaten to “kill” our trend
(and our Party—don’t be angry, Citizen Trotsky, this is true!), he only
prophesies that it will killitself!

This is much milder, isn’t it? It is almost “non-factional”, isn’t
it?

But joking apart (although joking is the only way of retorting mildly
to Trotsky’s insufferable phrase-mongering).

“Suicide” is a mere empty phrase, mere “Trotskyism”.

Splitting tactics are a grave political accusation. This accusation is
repeated against us in a thousand different keys by the liquidators and by
all the groups enumerated above, who, from the point of view of Paris and
Vienna, actually exist.

And all of them repeat this grave political accusation in an amazingly
frivolous way. Look at Trotsky. He admitted that “splitting tactics are
winning [read: the Pravdists are winning] one suicidal victory after
another”. To this he adds:

“Numerouss advanced workers, in a state of utter
   political bewilderment, themselves often become active agents of a
   split.”  (No. 1, p. 6.)

“Numerouss advanced workers, in a state of utter
   political bewilderment, themselves often become active agents of a
   split.”  (No. 1, p. 6.)

Are not these words a glaring example of irresponsibility on this
question?

You accuse us of being splitters when all that we see in front of us in
the arena of the working-class movement in Russia is liquidationism. So you
think that our attitude towards liquidationism is wrong? Indeed,allthe groups abroad that we enumerated above, no matter how much
they may differ from each other, are agreed that our attitude towards
liquidationism is wrong, that it is the attitude of “splitters”. This,
too, reveals the similarity (and fairly close political kinship) betweenallthese groups and the liquidators.

If our attitude towards liquidationism is wrong in theory, in
principle, then Trotsky should say sostraightforwardly, and statedefinitely, without equivocation, why he thinks it is wrong. But
Trotsky has been evading this extremely important pointfor years.

If our attitude towards liquidationism has been proved wrong in
practice, by the experience of the movement, then this experience should be
analysed; but Trotsky fails to do this either. “Numerous advanced
workers,” he admits, “becomeactive agentsof a split” (read:
active agents of the Pravdist line, tactics, system and organisation).

What is the cause of the deplorable fact, which, as Trotsky admits, is
confirmed by experience, that theadvancedworkers, thenumerousadvanced workers at that, stand forPravda?

It is the “utter political bewilderment” of these advanced workers,
answers Trotsky.

Needless to say, this explanation is highly flattering to Trotsky, to
all five groups abroad, and to the liquidators. Trotsky is very fond of
using, with the learned air of the expert, pompous and high-sounding
phrases to explainhistorical phenomena in a way that is flattering to Trotsky. Since
“numerous advanced workers” become “active agents” of a political and
Party line which does not conform to Trotsky’s line, Trotsky settles the
question unhesitatingly, out of hand: these advanced workers are “in a
state of utter political bewilderment”, whereas he, Trotsky, is evidently
“in a state” of political firmness and clarity, and keeps to the right
line!... And this very same Trotsky, beating his breast, fulminates against
factionalism, parochialism, and the efforts of intellectuals to impose
their will on the workers!

Reading things like these, one cannot help asking oneself:
is it from a lunatic asylum that such voices come?

The Party put the question of liquidationism, and of condemning it,
before the “advanced workers” as far back as 1908, while the question of
“splitting” away from a very definite group of liquidators (namely, theNasha Zaryagroup), i. e., that the only way to build up the Party
waswithoutthis group and in opposition to it—this question was
raised in January 1912, over two years ago. The overwhelming majority of
the advanced workers declaredin favour ofsupporting the
“January (1912) line”. Trotsky himself admits this fact when he talks
about “victories” and about “numerous advanced workers”. But Trotsky
wriggles out of this simply by hurlingabuseat these advanced
workers and calling them “splitters” and “politically bewildered”!

From these facts sane people will draw a different conclusion. Where
themajorityof the class-conscious workers have rallied around
precise and definite decisions, there we shall findunityof
opinion and action, there we shall find the Party spirit, and the Party.

Where we see liquidators who have been “removed from office” by the
workers, or half a dozen groups outside Russia, who for two years have
produced no proof that they are connected with the mass working-class
movement in Russia, there, indeed, we shall find bewilderment andsplits. In now trying to persuade the workersnot to carry out
the decisionsof that “united whole”, which the Marxist Pravdists
recognise, Trotsky istryingto disrupt the movement and cause a
split.

These efforts are futile, but we must expose the arrogantly conceited
leaders of intellectualist groups, who, while causing splits themselves,
are shouting about others causing splits; who, after sustainingutter
defeatat the hands of the “advanced workers” for the past two years
or more, are with incredible insolencefloutingthe decisions and
the will of these advanced workers and saying thattheyare
“politically bewildered”. These are entirely the methods of
Nozdrev,[7]or of “Judas”
Golovlyov.[8]

In reply to these repeated outcries about a split and in fulfilment of
my duty as a publicist, I will not tire of repeatingprecise,
unrefuted and irrefutable figures. In the Second Duma, 47 per cent of the
deputies elected by the worker curia were Bolsheviks, in the Third Duma 50
per cent were Bolsheviks, and in the Fourth Duma 67 per cent.

There you have the majority of the “advanced workers”, there you have
the Party; there you have unity of opinion and action of the majority of
the class-conscious workers.

To this the liquidators say (see Bulkin, L. M., inNasha ZaryaNo. 3) that we base our arguments on the Stolypin curias. This is a foolish
and unscrupulous argument. The Germans measure their successes by the
results of elections conducted under the Bismarckian electoral law, which
excludes women. Only people bereft of their senses would reproach the
German Marxists for measuring their successes under theexistingelectoral law, without in the least justifying its reactionary
restrictions.

And we, too, without justifying curias, or the curia system, measured
our successes under theexistingelectoral law. There were curias
in all three (Second, Third and Fourth) Duma elections; andwithinthe worker curia,withinthe ranks of Social-Democracy, there was
acompleteswing against the liquidators. Those who do not wish to
deceive themselves and others must admit this objective fact, namely, the
victory ofworking-class unity overthe liquidators.

The other argument is just as “clever”: “Mensheviks and liquidators
voted for (or took part in the election of) such and-such a Bolshevik.”
Splendid! But does not the same thing apply to the 53 per cent
non-Bolshevik deputies re turned to the Second Duma, and to the 50 per cent
returnedto the Third Duma, and to the 33 per cent returned to the Fourth Duma?

If, instead of the figures on the deputies elected, we could obtain the
figures on the electors, or workers’ delegates, etc., we would gladly quote
them. But these more detailed figures arenotavailable, and
consequently the “disputants” are simply throwing dust in people’s eyes.

But what about the figures of the workers’ groups that assisted the
newspapers of the different trends? Duringtwoyears (1912 and
1913), 2,801 groups assistedPravda, and 750 assistedLuch.[1]These figures are verifiable and nobody has attempted to disprove them.

Where is theunity of action and will of the majorityof the
“advanced workers”, and where is thefloutingof the will of the
majority?

Trotsky’s “non-factionalism” is, actually, splitting tactics, in that
it shamelessly flouts the will of the majority of the workers.

III. THE BREAK-UP OF THE AUGUST BLOC

But there is still another method, and a very important one, of
verifying the correctness and truthfulness of Trotsky’s accusations about
splitting tactics.

You consider that it is the “Leninists” who are splitters? Very well,
let us assume that you are right.

But if you are, why have not all the other sections and groups proved
that unity is possible with the liquidatorswithoutthe
“Leninists”, andagainstthe “splitters”?... If we are
splitters, why have not you, uniters, united among yourselves, and with the
liquidators? Had you done that you would have proved to the workersby
deedsthat unity is possible and beneficial!...

Let us go over the chronology of events.

In January 1912, the “Leninist” “splitters” declared that they were
a Partywithoutandagainstthe liquidators.

In March 1912,allthe groups and “factions”: liquidators,
Trotskyists, Vperyodists, “pro-Party Bolsheviks” and “pro-PartyMensheviks”, in their Russian news sheets and in the columns of the German
Social-Democratic newspaperVorw\"arts, unitedagainst these
“splitters”. All of them unanimously, in chorus, in unison and in one
voice vilified us and called us “usurpers”, “mystifiers”, and other no
less affectionate and tender names.

Very well, gentlemen! But what could have been easier for you than to
uniteagainstthe “usurpers” and to set the “advanced workers”
an example ofunity? Do you mean to say that if the advanced
workers had seen, on the one hand, the unity of all against the usurpers,
the unity of liquidators and non-liquidators, and on the other,isolated“usurpers”, “splitters”, and so forth; they would not
have supported the former?

If disagreements are only invented, or exaggerated, and so forth, by
the “Leninists”, and if unity between the liquidators, Plekhanovites,
Vperyodists, Trotskyists, and so forth, is reallypossible, why
have you not proved this during the past two years byyour ownexample?

In August 1912, a conference of “uniters” was
convened.Disunitystarted at once: the Plekhanovites refused to
attend at all; the Vperyodists attended, but walked out after protesting
and exposing the fictitious character of the whole business.

The liquidators, the Letts, the Trotskyists (Trotsky and Semkovsky),
the Caucasians, and the Seven “united”. But did they? We stated at the
time that they did not, that this was merely a screen to cover up
liquidationism. Have the events disproved our statement?

Exactly eighteen months later, in February 1914, we found:

1.
 that the Seven was breaking up. Buryanov had left them.

2.
 that in the remaining new “Six”, Chkheidze and Tulyakov, or somebody
else, could not see eye to eye on the reply to be made to Plekhanov. They
stated in the press that they would reply to him,but they could
not.

3.
 that Trotsky, who for many months had practically vanished from the columns
ofLuck, hadbroken away, and had started “his own”
journal,Borba. By calling this journal “non-factional”, Trotsky
clearly (clearly to those whoare at all familiar with the subject) intimates that in his, Trotsky’s,
opinion,Nasha ZaryaandLuch had proved to be“factional”, i. e., poor uniters.

If you are a uniter, my dear Trotsky, if you say that it is possible to
unite with the liquidators, if you and they stand by the “fundamental
ideas formulated in August 1912” (BorbaNo. 1, p. 43, Editorial
Note), whydid not you yourselfunite with the liquidators inNasha ZaryaandLuch?

When, before Trotsky’s journal appeared,Severnaya Rabochaya
Gazetapublished some scathing comment stating that the physiognomy of
this journal was “unclear” and that there had been “quite a good deal of
talk in Marxist circles” about this journal,Put Pravdy(No. 37)[2]was naturally obliged to expose this falsehood. It said: “There has been
talk in Marxist circles” about a secret memorandum written by TrotskyagainsttheLuchgroup; Trotsky’s physiognomy and his
breakaway from the August bloc were perfectly “clear”.

4.
 An, the well-known leader of the Caucasian liquidators, who had attacked
L. Sedov (for which he was given a public wigging by F. Dan and Co.), now
appeared inBorba. It remains “unclear” whether the Caucasians
now desire to go with Trotsky or with Dan.

5.
 The Lettish Marxists, who were the only real organisation in the “August
bloc”, hadformallywithdrawn from it, stating (in1914)
in the resolution of their last Congress that:

“the attempt on the part of the conciliators to
   unite at all costs with the liquidators (the August Conference of 1912)
   proved fruitless, and the uniters themselves became ideologically and
   politically dependent upon the liquidators.”

“the attempt on the part of the conciliators to
   unite at all costs with the liquidators (the August Conference of 1912)
   proved fruitless, and the uniters themselves became ideologically and
   politically dependent upon the liquidators.”

This statement was made,after eighteen months’ experience, by an
organisation which had itself beenneutraland hadnotdesired to establish connection witheitherof the two
centres. This decision ofneutralsshould carry all the more
weight with Trotsky!

Enough, is it not?

Those who accused us of being splitters, of being unwilling or unable
to get on with the liquidators, werethemselvesunable to get on with them. The August bloc proved to be a fiction and
broke up.

By concealing this break-up from his readers, Trotsky is deceiving
them.

The experience of our opponents has proved that we are right, has
proved that the liquidators cannot be co-operated with.

IV. A CONCILIATOR’S ADVICE TO THE “SEVEN”

The editorial article in issue No. 1 ofBorbaentitled “The
Split in the Duma Group” contains advice from a conciliator to the seven
pro-liquidator (or inclining towards liquidationism) members of the
Duma. The gist of this advice is contained in the following words:

“first of all consult the Six whenever it is necessary
   to reach an agreement with other groups....” (P. 29.)

“first of all consult the Six whenever it is necessary
   to reach an agreement with other groups....” (P. 29.)

This is the wise counsel which, among other things, is evidently the
cause of Trotsky’s disagreement with the liquidators ofLuch. This
is the opinion the Pravdists have held ever since the outbreak of the
conflict between the two groups in the Duma, ever since the resolution of
the Summer (1913) Conference was adopted. The Russian Social-Democratic
Labour group in the Duma has reiterated in thepress, even after
the split, that it continues to adhere to this position, in spite of the
repeated refusals of the Seven.

From the very outset, since the time the resolution of the Summer
Conference was adopted, we have been, and still are, of the opinion thatagreementson questions concerning activities in theDumaare desirable and possible; if such agreements have been repeatedly arrived
at with the petty-bourgeois peasant democrats (Trudoviks), they are all the
more possible and necessary with the petty-bourgeois, liberal-labour
politicians.

We must not exaggerate disagreements, but we must face the facts: the
Seven are men, leaning towards liquidationism, who yesterday entirely
followed the lead of Dan, and whose eyes today are travelling longingly
from Dan to Trotsky and back again. The liquidators are a group of
legalists who have broken away from the Party and are pursuing a liberal-labour policy. Since they repudiate the “underground”, there can be no
question of unity with them in matters concerning Party organisation and
the working-class movement. Who ever thinks differently is badly mistaken
and fails to take into account the profound nature of the changes that have
taken place since 1908.

Butagreementson certain questions with this group, which
stands outside or on the fringe of the Party, are, of course, permissible:
wemustalways compel this group, too, like the Trudoviks, to
choose between the workers’ (Pravdist) policy and the liberal policy. For
example, on the question of fighting for freedom of the press the
liquidators clearly revealed, vacillation between the liberal formulation
of the question, which repudiated, or overlooked, the illegal press, and
the opposite policy, that of the workers.

Within the scope of aDumapolicy in which the most importantextra-Dumaissues are not directly raised, agreements with the
seven liberal-labour deputies are possible and desirable. On this point
Trotsky has shifted his groundfromthat of the liquidatorstothat of the Party Summer (1913) Conference.

It should not be forgotten, however, that to a group standing outside
the Party, agreement means something entirely different from what Party
people usually understand by the term. By “agreement” in the Duma,
non-Party people mean “drawing upa tactical resolution, or
line”. To Party people agreement is an attempt toenlistothers
in the work of carrying out the Party line.

For example, the Trudoviks have no party. By agreement they understand
the “voluntary”, so to speak, “drawing up” of a line, today with the
Cadets, tomorrow with the Social-Democrats. We, however, understand
something entirely different by agreement with the Trudoviks. We have Party
decisions on all the important questions of tactics, and we shall never
depart from these decisions; by agreement with the Trudoviks we meanwinningthem over to our side,convincingthem that we
are right, andnot rejectingjoint action against the Black
Hundreds and against the liberals.

How far Trotsky has forgotten (not for nothing has he associated with
the liquidators) this elementary differencebetween the Party and non-Party point of view on agreements, is shown by
the following argument of his:

“The representatives of the International must bring
   together the two sections of our divided parliamentary group and jointly
   with them ascertain the points of agreement and points of
   disagreement.... A detailed tactical resolution formulating the principles
   of parliamentary tactics may he drawn up....”  (No. 1, pp. 29—30.)

“The representatives of the International must bring
   together the two sections of our divided parliamentary group and jointly
   with them ascertain the points of agreement and points of
   disagreement.... A detailed tactical resolution formulating the principles
   of parliamentary tactics may he drawn up....”  (No. 1, pp. 29—30.)

Here you have a characteristic and typical example of the
liquidationist presentation of the question! Trotsky’s journal forgets
about the Party; such a trifle is hardly worth remembering!

When different parties in Europe (Trotsky is fond of inappropriately
talking about Europeanism) come to an agreement or unite, what they do is
this: their respective representatives meet and first of all ascertain the
points of disagreement (precisely what the International proposed in
relation to Russia, without including in the resolution Kautsky’s
ill-considered statement that “the old Party no longer
exists”[9]). Having ascertained the points of disagreement, the
representatives decidewhat decisions(resolutions, conditions,
etc.) on questions of tactics, organisation, etc.,should be submitted
to the congresses of the two parties. If they succeed in drafting
unanimous decisions, the congresses decide whether to adopt them or not. Ifdifferingproposals are made, they too are submitted for final
decision to the congresses of the two parties.

What appeals to the liquidators and Trotsky is only theEuropeanmodels of opportunism, but certainly not the models of
European partisanship.

“A detailed tactical resolution” will be drawn up by the members of
the Duma! This example should serve the Russian “advanced workers”, with
whom Trotsky has good reason to be so displeased, as a striking
illustration of the lengths to which the groups in Vienna and Paris—who
persuaded even Kautsky that there was “no Party” in Russia—go in their
ludicrous project-mongering. But if it is some times possible to fool
foreigners on this score, the Russian “advanced workers” (at the risk of
provoking the terrible Trotsky to another outburst of displeasure) will
laugh in the faces of these project-mongers.

“Detailed tactical resolutions,” they will tell them, “are drawn up
among us (we do not know how it is done among you lion-Party people) by
Party congresses and conferences, for example, those of 1907, 1908, 1910,
1912 and 1913. We shall gladly acquaint uninformed foreigners, as well as
forgetful Russians, with our Party decisions, and still more gladly ask the
representatives of the Seven, or the August bloc members, or Left-wingers
or anybody else, to acquaint us with the resolutions of their congresses,
or conferences, and to bring up at their next congress the definite
question of the attitude they should adopt towards our resolutions, or
towards the resolution of the neutral Lettish Congress of 1914, etc.”

This is what the “advanced workers” of Russia will say to the various
project-mongers, and thishas already been saidiii the Marxist
press, for example, by the organised Marxists of St. Petersburg. Trotsky
chooses to ignore these published terms for the liquidators? So much the
worse for Trotsky. It is our duty to warn our readers how ridiculous that
“unity” (the August type of “unity”?) project-mongering is which
refuses to reckon with the will of the majority of the class-conscious
workers of Russia.

V. TROTSKY’S LIQUIDATIONIST VIEWS

As to the substance of his own views, Trotsky contrived to say as
little as possible in his new journal.Put Pravdy(No. 37) has
already commented on the fact that Trotsky has not said a word either on
the question of the “underground” or on the slogan of working for a legal
party,
				 etc.[3]That, among other things, is why we say that when attempts are made to form
a separate organisation which is to havenoideological and
political physiognomy, it isthe worstform of factionalism.

Although Trotsky has refrained from openly expounding his views, quite
a number of passages in his journal show what kind of ideas he has been
trying to smuggle in.

In the very first editorial article in the first issue of his journal,
we read the following:

“The pre-revolutionary Social-Democratic Party in our
   country was aworkers’ party only in ideas and aims. Actually, it
   was an organisation of the Marxist intelligentsia, which led the awakening
   working class.” (5.)

“The pre-revolutionary Social-Democratic Party in our
   country was aworkers’ party only in ideas and aims. Actually, it
   was an organisation of the Marxist intelligentsia, which led the awakening
   working class.” (5.)

This is the old liberal and liquidationist tune, which is really the
prelude to therepudiationof the Party. It is based on a
distortion of the historical facts. The strikes of 1895—96 had already
given rise to amassworking-class movement, which both in ideas
and organisation was linked with the Social-Democratic movement. And in
these strikes, in this economic and non-economic agitation, the
“intelligentsialedthe working class”!?

Or take the following exact statistics of political offences in the
period 1901—03 compared with the preceding period.

We see that in the eighties, when there was as yet no Social-Democratic
Party in Russia, and when the movement was “Narodnik”, the intelligentsia
predominated, accounting for over half the participants.

But the picture underwent a complete change in 1901—03, when a
Social-Democratic Party already existed, and when the oldIskrawas conducting its work. The intelligentsia were now aminorityamong the participants of the movement; theworkers(“industry
and commerce”) were far more numerous than the intelligentsia, and the
workers and peasants together constituted more than half the total.

It was precisely in the conflict of trends within the Marxist movement
that the petty-bourgeois intellectualistwingof the
Social-Democracy made itself felt, beginning with Economism (1895—1903)
and continuing with Menshevism (1903—1908) and liquidationism
(1908—1914). Trotskyrepeats the liquidationist slander against the Party and is afraid to
mention the history of the twenty years’ conflict of trends within the
Party.

Here is another example.

“In its attitude towards parliamentarism, Russian
   Social-Democracy passed through the same three stages ... [as in other
   countries] ...  first ‘boycottism’ ... then the acceptance in principle of
   parliamentary tactics, but ... [that magnificent “but”, the “but” which
   Shchedrin translated as: The ears never grow higher than the forehead,

				never![4]]...

   for purely agitational purposes ... and lastly, the presentation from the
   Duma rostrum ... of current demands....”  (No. 1, p. 34.)

“In its attitude towards parliamentarism, Russian
   Social-Democracy passed through the same three stages ... [as in other
   countries] ...  first ‘boycottism’ ... then the acceptance in principle of
   parliamentary tactics, but ... [that magnificent “but”, the “but” which
   Shchedrin translated as: The ears never grow higher than the forehead,

				never![4]]...

   for purely agitational purposes ... and lastly, the presentation from the
   Duma rostrum ... of current demands....”  (No. 1, p. 34.)

This, too, is a liquidationist distortion of history. The distinction
between the second and third stages was invent ed in order to smuggle in a
defence of reformism and opportunism. Boycottism as a stage in “the
attitude of Social-Democracy towards parliamentarism” never existedeitherin Europe (where anarchism has existed and continues to
exist) or in Russia, where the boycott of the Bulygin Duma, for example,
appliedonlyto a definite institution, wasneverlinked
with “parliamentarism”, and was engendered by the peculiar nature of the
struggle between liberalism and Marxism for the continuation of the
onslaught. Trotsky does not breathe a word, about the way this struggle
affected the conflict between the two trends in Marxism!

When dealing with history, one must explain concrete questions and the
class roots of the different trends; anybody who wants to make a Marxist
study of the struggle of classes and trends over the question of
participation in the Bulygin Duma, will see therein the roots of the
liberal-labour policy. But Trotsky “deals with” history only in order toevadeconcrete questions and toinventa justification,
or a semblance of justification, for the present-day opportunists!

“Actually, all trends,” he writes, “employ the same
   methods of struggle and organisation.” “The outcries about the liberal
   danger in our working-class movement are simply a crude and sectarian
   travesty of reality.” (No. 1, pp. 5 and 35.)

“Actually, all trends,” he writes, “employ the same
   methods of struggle and organisation.” “The outcries about the liberal
   danger in our working-class movement are simply a crude and sectarian
   travesty of reality.” (No. 1, pp. 5 and 35.)

This is a very clear and very vehement, defence of the liquidators. But
we will take the liberty of quoting at leastone small fact, one of the very latest. Trotsky merely slings words about;
we should like the workers themselves to ponder over the facts.

It is a fact thatSevernaya Rabochaya Gazetafor March 13
wrote the following:

“Instead of emphasising the definite and concrete
   task that confronts the working class, viz., to compel the Duma to throw
   out the bill[on the press],a vague formula is
   proposed of fighting for the ‘uncurtailed slogans’, and at the same time
   the illegal press is widely advertised, which can only lead to the
   relaxation of the workers’ struggle for their legal press.”

“Instead of emphasising the definite and concrete
   task that confronts the working class, viz., to compel the Duma to throw
   out the bill[on the press],a vague formula is
   proposed of fighting for the ‘uncurtailed slogans’, and at the same time
   the illegal press is widely advertised, which can only lead to the
   relaxation of the workers’ struggle for their legal press.”

This is a clear, precise and documentary defence of the liquidationist
policy and a criticism of thePravdapolicy. Well, will any
literate person say that both trends employ “the same methods of struggle
and organisation” on this question? Will any literate person say that the
liquidators arenotpursuing aliberal-labourpolicy on
this question, that the liberal menace to the working-class movement is
purely imaginary?

The reason why Trotsky avoids facts and concrete references is because
they relentlessly refute all his angry outcries and pompous phrases. It is
very easy, of course, to strike an attitude and say: “a crude and
sectarian travesty”. Or to add a still more stinging and pompous
catch-phrase, such as “emancipation from conservative factionalism”.

But is this not very cheap? Is not this weapon borrowed from the
arsenal of the period when Trotsky posed in all his splendour before
audiences of high-school boys?

Nevertheless, the “advanced workers”, with whom Trotsky is so angry,
would like to be told plainly and clearly:
Do you or do you not approve of the “method of struggle and organisation”
that is definitely expressed in the above-quoted appraisal of a definite
political campaign? If you do, then you are pursuing a liberal-labour
policy, betraying Marxism and the Party; to talk of “peace” or of
“unity” withsucha policy, with groups which pursuesucha policy, means deceiving yourself and others.

If not, then say so plainly. Phrases will not astonish, satisfy or
intimidate the present-day workers.

Incidentally, the policy advocated by the liquidators in the
above-quoted passage is a foolish one even from theliberal point of view, for the passage of a bill in the Duma depends on
“Zemstvo-Octobrists” of the type of Bennigsen, who has already shown his
hand in the committee.

The old participants in the Marxist movement in Russia know Trotsky
very well, and there is no need to discuss him for their benefit. But the
younger generation of workers do not know him, and it is therefore
necessary to discuss him, for he is typical of all the five groups abroad,
which, in fact, are also vacillating between the liquidators and the Party.

In the days of the oldIskra(1901—03), these waverers, who
flitted from the Economists to the Iskrists and back again, were dubbed
“Tushino turncoats” (the name given in the Troublous Times in Rus to
fighting men who went over from one camp to
another[10]).

When we speak of liquidationism we speak of a definite ideological
trend, which grew up in the course of many years, stems from Menshevism and
Economism in the twenty years’ history of Marxism, and is connected with
the policy and ideology of a definite class—the liberal bourgeoisie.

The only ground the “Tushino turncoats” have for claiming that they
stand above groups is that they “borrow” their ideas from one group one
day and from another the next day. Trotsky was an ardent Iskrist in
1901—03, and Ryazanov described his role at the Congress of 1903 as
“Lenin’s cudgel”. At the end of 1903, Trotsky was an ardent Menshevik,
i. e., he deserted from the Iskrists to the Economists. He said that
“between the oldIskraand the new lies a gulf”. In 1904—05, he
deserted the Mensheviks and occupied a vacillating position, now
co-operating with Martynov (the Economist), now proclaiming his absurdly
Left “permanent revolution” theory. In 1906—07, he approached the
Bolsheviks, and in the spring of 1907 he declared that he was in agreement
with Rosa Luxemburg.

In the period of disintegration, after long “non-factional”
vacillation, he again went to the right, and in August 1912, he entered
into a bloc with the liquidators. He has nowdeserted them again, althoughin substancehe reiterates their
shoddy ideas.

Such types are characteristic of the flotsam of past historical
formations, of the time when the mass, working-class movement in Russia was
still dormant, and when every group had “ample room” in which to pose as
a trend, group or faction, in short, as a “power”, negotiating
amalgamation with others.

The younger generation of workers should know exactly whom they are
dealing with, when individuals come before them with incredibly pretentious
claims, unwilling absolutely to reckon witheitherthe Party
decisions, which since 1908 have defined and established our attitude
towards liquidationism,orwith the experience of the present-day
working-class movement in Russia, which has actually brought about theunityof the majority on the basis of full recognition of the
aforesaid decisions.

[1]A preliminary calculation made up to April 1, 1914, showed 4,000 groups
forPravda(commencing with January 1,1912) and 1,000 for the
liquidators and all their allies taken together.  —Lenin

[2]See pp. 158—81 of this volume.—Ed.

[3]See pp. 158—61 of this volume.—Ed.

[4]Meaning the impossible.—Ed.

[5]This refers toProsveshcheniye.

[6]Pro-Party Bolsheviks—conciliators with leanings towards the
liquidators. (For further details see Lenin’s article “Adventurism”,
pp. 350—59 of this volume.)

Pro-Party Mensheviks—headed by Plekhanov, came out against
the liquidators during the period of reaction. While taking a Menshevik
stand, the Plekhanovites at the same time stood for the preservation and
strengthening of the illegal Party organisation and therefore stood for a
bloc with the Bolsheviks. Plekhanov broke the bloc with the Bolsheviks at
the end of 1911. Under the guise of fighting “factionalism” and the split
in the R.S.D.L.P. be attempted to reconcile the Bolsheviks with the
opportunists. In 1912 the Plekhanovites, together with the Trotskyists,
Bundists and liquidators, came out against the decisions of the Prague
Conference of the R.S.D.L.P.

[7]Nozdrev—a character in Gogol’sDead Soulstypifying
a self-assured, impudent, and mendacious person.

[8]“Judas”Golovlyov—a character in
Saltykov-Shchedrin’s bookThe Golovlyov Familytypifying the
spiritual and physicaldisintegration of the historically doomed class of feudalist landlords,
social parasites, treacherous hypocrites.

[9]At the December meeting of the International Socialist Bureau (held in
London on December 13—14, 1913) a resolution was adopt ed instructing the
Executive of the International Socialist Bureau to call a meeting of
representatives of “all factions of the labour movement in Russia,
including Russian Poland, who recognise the Party Programme or whose
programme corresponds with that of the Social-Democrats, for a mutual
exchange o opinions (Aussprache) on points of disagreement”. In
seconding this resolution, Kautsky, in his speech of December 14, stated
that the old Social-Democratic Party in Russia was dead. It had to be
re-established on the basis of the Russian workers’ urge for unity. In his
article “A Good Resolution and a Bad Speech”, Lenin examined this
resolution and called Kautsky’s speech monstrous. (See present edition,
Vol. 19, pp. 528—30.)

[10]The Troublous Times—a term used in pre-revolutionary Russian
historiography to denote the period of the peasant war and the struggle of
the Russian people against the Polish and Swedish intervention in the early
seventeenth century.

In 1608 the Polish troops under Pseudo-Dmitry II, a henchman of the
Polish landed gentry who posed as the younger son of the Russian tsar Ivan
the Terrible, invaded Russia, and reached the outskirts of Moscow, where
they encamped in Tushino. A government headed by Pseudo-Dmitry was formed
in Tushino in opposition to the government of Moscow. Some of the Russian
nobles and boyar aristocracy deserted one camp for another in an effort to
keep in with the winning side. These deserters were called “Tushino
turncoats”.